Do you believe in a supernatural Catholic God or a stupidnatural Catholic God? Answer me please?

Have you read the Bible? God by His very nature is supernatural.

So why do you choose to relegate His nature by removing him from our origins as rationalizing people, and why do you choose to make God use natural processes which are blind, unconscious, unmotivated, and unpurposed? This is not descriptive of a supernatural God but an exact opposite version of a supernatural God who is all-powerful, all-knowledgeable, and very, very purposed.

You still havent caught on have you? That is the way God SAID He did it, therefore, God is not a liar. If God had not informed us of such an event then you could call him a liar.

You still haven't caught on, have you? When did God inform us that He created a universe filled with depictions of false events?

Your argument is just about stagnent. Why do you use science to tell you what is true and false about God? You determine God to be a liar on the basis of scientific investigation while ignoring Genesis? You are wrong on 2 counts: You ruin science AND religion.

At least the atheists only ruin science.

However, the true disgust here is that you use science to consider whether God is a liar while ironically denying any connection to religion. So it is not so much that you dislike my religion, there are many out there for which that holds true. It is that you use science inappropriately and unethically.

Look who's talking. I haven't claimed any connection to science in this thread for the past several days. Unlike you, who pretends to be scientific, I realize that this isn't a scientific debate anymore. This debate has nothing to do with science or evolution. This is purely a religious debate by now (and should probably be moved to the off-topic), and my main purpose is not to debate you using science but the Bible. The truly disgusting thing is that you claim to be scientific while all the time discussing religion and philosophy, not science. Talk about misuse of science.

This is false to fact. I have never claimed to be "scientific" in regards to my origins, I use religion to describe where I have ultimately arose.

So far you have made two utterly wrong accusations:

1. You call God a liar on the basis of science, which is of itself obviously wrong. You attempt to call God a liar for producing what you call illusions when God has informed us of His creation tactics. This is not logical. You can call God a liar as much as you choose but as long as Genesis is part of the Bible you use, this claim remains unfounded.

2. You have now claimed that I have misused science to explain where I have come from when I have stated repeatedly that I do not use science at all to explain where I have come from. That is, unless, I am teaching my Biology classes in which case I simply lie because people like you force me to.

I find it adverse that you would judge my religion all the while using science to dictate yours.

I'm using the Bible to dictate my religion, not science. As I said above I haven't used science in days. Pay attention.

WHAT? You have said the universe is billions of years old on the basis of science, unless the Bible says that somewhere. Does it?

Again, when did God tell us that He created a universe filled with depiction of false events?

Refer to false accusation 1 above. When Someone tells you something happened in such and such way, one may continuously claim that Somone to be a liar but the claim is unfounded.

Wake up and realize that you take Darwin's words and the evolutionist's word before God's Word.

Wake up and realize that I'm using the Bible and placing its authority before all else.

Show me where the Bible says that men evolved from an eternal universe, eternal forces, nothingness, or a stupidnatural god. I will then believe in evolution.

BTW, the irony meter really hit the roof. You do not rely on the Bible at all to tell you how God created us as you believe in evolution. The Bible does not teach evolution, science does. How can you miss such simple facts?

Read Genesis then get back to me on that "contradicting" bit.

I advise you to do the same. In case you didn't realize it, Genesis contains two creation stories.

Yes and they correlate very nicely on the basis of their verifying nature.

In chapter 1, animals are created before man over a period of six days. In chapter 2, man is created before animals. This is just one of many contradictions in the Genesis creation story, and just one bit of much Biblical evidence that the creation stories are metaphorical.

That is NOT a contradiction at all, just a different perspective from the storyteller's view. And I thought you believed in the Bible? While on the "metaphorical" topic, please tell me why you choose to infer the selection process from artificial selection, as Darwin did, but refuse to infer the breeder along for the ride?

But metaphors for what? I used to wonder that myself, until I finally decided to quit wondering and read the actual book. What I found in Genesis 1 is a near-perfect description of what sounded like the big bang and evolution.

Did the Bible use 6 days AND NIGHTS or billions of years? You have a strange take on what sounds to be the big bang and evolution as they are diametrically opposed to both creation accounts in Genesis. But the bottom line is that you are using evolution, in this case cosmic evolution (if you need help with this term tell me), to tell you how God created the universe and us. This is as scientific as scientific creationism which we both know is not science.

BTW, when the Bible speaks in metaphorical terms it is easily detectable. Genesis was written as a historical account NOT as a metaphor unless you simply want to substitute science for Genesis which it seems you have done.

Now at the time I was not as big into science as I am now, but this inspired me to investigate...

...unethically, using science.

To make a long story short, I have come to learn how God created us, and He basically used exactly what He told us, evolution.

God never told us that He used evolution. That is a lie and at least Darwin knew better than to correlate the Bible with evolution.

I recommend you read the Bible (or at least Genesis) again before making such false claims.

I suggest that you look at who propogated evolutionary theory before you off-handedly correlate the Bible with evolution. Evolution is the product of Darwin's agnostic mindset and has proliferated under atheism with ties to humanism. You are mixing oil and water, and they simply dont go together as much as you claim Genesis to be false.

I don't even know where to begin, but here it goes. My main point, biotchr, is that you seriously need to stop acting like you know exactly what everyone else believes. You don't.

For example, you claim that I call God a liar; I never have. I merely pointed out that YOU have called God a liar. There's a difference.

You claim the two Genesis creation stories do not contradict each other; you obviously have never read them, and I wonder if you have read the rest of the Bible, as well.

You claim that I don't think God played a role in the evolutionary process. I do.

You claim that we can't witness the power of God without looking at creation; God must not have done very much to help you, then. The universe that He created certainly is a very powerful reminder to me of His power, but I don't need to look that far. All I need to do is look at everything He has done and continues to do to help me. I'm not quite sure why He hasn't done these things for you, or maybe He has and you have failed to notice. But I find it hard to understand why you need more to be reminded of His power; isn't His presence and assistance alone powerful enough for you? Or has He failed you in some way? Or you failed Him?

And by the way, when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species in 1859, he was as devout a Christian as anyone else. He did not abandon his faith until the last few years of his life, and he did so not because of evolution but because of the death of his daughter. Once again you have no idea what you're talking about.

A final word about investigating the past. Imagine you visited the dealership where I work, and you saw in the parking lot the tread marks from where I peeled out before going home. I'm not making this up at all; those tread marks are probably still there. I suppose that, according to your logic, it was not me who created those tread marks. They must've been directly created by God, because unless you have a time machine to see if it was me, it must've been God's direct intervention. Now do you understand the insanity of your claims?

I suggest you do some homework in science, religion, and history, and then come and talk to us after you know what you're talking about. And please try to listen as well, instead of just running your mouth. I'm tired of having to correct you when you try to accuse me of saying things I never said.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

I don't even know where to begin, but here it goes. My main point, biotchr, is that you seriously need to stop acting like you know exactly what everyone else believes. You don't.

Unfortunately, in many cases especially when dealing with atheists, I have to tell them what they believe because they simply lie. Now I have to tell you that your belief in God and His ways are dictated by science and scientific findings. You believe the universe to be billions of years old on the basis of science, not the Bible.

For example, you claim that I call God a liar; I never have. I merely pointed out that YOU have called God a liar. There's a difference.

You call God a liar by overlooking Genesis while conviniently accepting science to explain where you came from.

You claim the two Genesis creation stories do not contradict each other; you obviously have never read them, and I wonder if you have read the rest of the Bible, as well.

The two accounts actually work together in harmony. It sounds like you need to take some Bible classes and learn how to read the Bible. Stories given from different perspectives will not be exactly the same. That is not how we retell history. We retell the facts of a story from our personal perspective which is the case in the two accounts in Genesis.

You claim that I don't think God played a role in the evolutionary process. I do.

That is ultimately the problem. Theistic evolutionists are the easiest evolutionists to debate with as your religiosity is so very apparent. Read your above statement and realize that evolution is NOT science but religious. Athiests are a little bit more difficult to debate as they simply deny that there is a creator at work in evolution.

I once had a cyber-friend that ended all his posts with "God is an evolutionist" then would scream when I claimed that evolution was religious. His statement was so contradicting in terms of science and religion. You are guilty of doing the same above.

Origins implies the work of a creator and we each have our own biased opinion about the existence and role of a creator. That bias is NOT allowed by the scientific method. That type of bias makes people observe bones and make up crazy sci-fi stories.

You claim that we can't witness the power of God without looking at creation;

Yes but I choose not to displace God from His creation. I would not dare remove God from any origins possiblity that occurred beyond recorded, human history as with a SUPERnatural God, anything is possible. This is best described by religion, NOT science.

God must not have done very much to help you, then. The universe that He created certainly is a very powerful reminder to me of His power, but I don't need to look that far.

Then why do you place your faith in science to tell you where you came from?

All I need to do is look at everything He has done and continues to do to help me. I'm not quite sure why He hasn't done these things for you, or maybe He has and you have failed to notice.

I will not notice the same things you notice as you use science to study God, not the Bible. As long as you continue to do so I am afraid we will continue to be on a different wavelength.

But I find it hard to understand why you need more to be reminded of His power; isn't His presence and assistance alone powerful enough for you? Or has He failed you in some way? Or you failed Him?

I fail God consistently. I will not fail God with the easy part - believing that He created everything around us in 6 days.

How does evolution remind you of God's power? Do you realize the number of atheists I have debated online and in person that believes in evolution as it supposedly makes their story believable. You are mixing atheism with the Bible.

And by the way, when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species in 1859, he was as devout a Christian as anyone else. He did not abandon his faith until the last few years of his life, and he did so not because of evolution but because of the death of his daughter. Once again you have no idea what you're talking about.

You might just have me on this one and it is too late for me to any sort of research. I thought Darwin was reluctant in his faith but quietly so. I also thought his wife had to help keep this agnostic mindset in the closet for Darwin.

A final word about investigating the past. Imagine you visited the dealership where I work, and you saw in the parking lot the tread marks from where I peeled out before going home. I'm not making this up at all; those tread marks are probably still there. I suppose that, according to your logic, it was not me who created those tread marks. They must've been directly created by God, because unless you have a time machine to see if it was me, it must've been God's direct intervention. Now do you understand the insanity of your claims?

Apples and oranges. I would not hypothesize that God directly reached down and created those skid marks. I know where skid marks come from as you do. No one knows where life and life forms came from - that is a religious topic as everyone has a different opinion about the existence and role of a creator or lack thereof.

BTW, skid marks are phenomena that are within our historical frame of reference that we cant test, repeat, and conclude on the basis of. There is no opinion of a creator involved in observing and analyzing skid marks.

I suggest you do some homework in science, religion, and history, and then come and talk to us after you know what you're talking about. And please try to listen as well, instead of just running your mouth. I'm tired of having to correct you when you try to accuse me of saying things I never said.

Sorry, I am educated in science, religion, and a little history, and I have a host of college degrees and state and national teaching certifications to prove it. It is perfectly normal for you to engage in such a religious argument as "you dont know what your talking about" and "do your homework". All religous people that debate about their particular religions use such tactics. Evolution is no different - it is religious.

damien james wrote:Wow. All I can say is what strange, delusional, internal world you live in. Thankfully you were not my teacher when I was younger, or I might have ended up on wrong misinformed track.

Get this partner. Hit the rewind button, go back far enough, and the majority of biology teachers believed exactly what I believed. That "strange, delusional, internal world" they lived in and taught is the basis of my American freedom and is part of my heritage. It interesting that you claim you would have been so "misinformed" under my teaching when my beliefs were probably part of the common curriculum of your grandparents. Tis pitiful how things have changed. Now we teach kids that they evolved from glorified apes and they act like apes.

David George wrote:there it goes on this debate will never end will it and I have to admit that everybody is in the search for God but I will also admit that I lost my fear over darkness and ghosts as soon as I stopped trusting religion.

Good,
a religion should never make you feel afraid like that.

Its only people we have to fear, and ourselves.

As far as the other topics discussed, I am reading up more on it.

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

damien james wrote:Wow. All I can say is what strange, delusional, internal world you live in. Thankfully you were not my teacher when I was younger, or I might have ended up on wrong misinformed track.

Get this partner. Hit the rewind button, go back far enough, and the majority of biology teachers believed exactly what I believed. That "strange, delusional, internal world" they lived in and taught is the basis of my American freedom and is part of my heritage. It interesting that you claim you would have been so "misinformed" under my teaching when my beliefs were probably part of the common curriculum of your grandparents. Tis pitiful how things have changed. Now we teach kids that they evolved from glorified apes and they act like apes.

Well as a parent, when my kids were in school, I told them they could answer exam questions as "some believe that we may have evolved from apes"... etc.. and even explain it.

as compared with Saying "we evolved from...."

they could put as an answer:

"some scientists believe we evolved from..."

and I would send a letter to the teachers explaining That as a family we did not believe this. But I dont mind if they learn the theory.

I think its important that kids respect what they are learning and yet, at the same time be able to challenge concepts that are not factual, in the same way that creation has been challenged.

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

Biotchr, you seriously need to stop acting like you know my beliefs better than I do. I claim 2+2=4, and you claim it equals 5, which it doesn't, so I win; except you never claimed it equals 5. See the point?

You wrongly claim that I base my faith not in religion but in science. Nothing could be farther from the truth. My religion (Catholicism) is how I learn about and experience God, and also helps me to put into perspective what I learn from science. Science does nothing to help me put religion into perspective, although it does help to remind me of the beauty of God's creation. Religion reveals His presence in much more powerful ways.

There are some who wrongly use science as a substitute for religion, but you are wrong to claim that I am one of them. You, on the other hand, seem to use religion as a substitute for science, which is just as bad.

This debate will go no further until you admit that no one knows what I believe better than me.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.